Stuart Dougal: Referee Willie Collum got Edinburgh derby decisions correct

Stuart Dougal has backed Willie Collum's performance in the Edinburgh derby, saying the match official got two major calls right.

The former FIFA-list referee believes his old colleague used his common sense in his application of the rules and man-management of players, rather than flashing cards for every challenge.

In an interview with STV, Dougal outlines why he thinks Collum handled the high-pressure affair well.

Should Willie Collum have sent Ryan Stevenson off for the challenge on James McPake? Why didn’t he?

It was a throwback to how players challenged in Scotland before the laws were tinkered with in terms of looking after the safety of the players.

Here I saw two players fully committed and going for the ball at more or less the same speed and aggression.

Stevenson's studs are slightly showing but he is clearly focused on the ball. McPake was unlucky he got to ball first. It's a very marginal decision. If Collum shows a red card there, few would argue.

In the context of the game, he probably saw that two players were wholly committed and, in keeping with the game, felt he could manage that situation rather than just reaching for the red card.

As a referee, what would you take into consideration when players go into challenges like that?

First of all, is the challenge endangering an opponent's safety? You can look at that and say yes. But equally, McPake's challenge for the same ball at the same time, if it had been a fraction the other way, Stevenson may have come off worse.

It wasn't so much a clear red card as Stevenson endangering the opponent's safety. You've then got to look at the speed of the challenge and the intent.

Both players were going in at more or less the same speed. The intent I don't think was to play the player's leg, albeit there was the follow through from the initial challenge.

The referee has satisfied himself with giving the throw-in to Hearts because McPake won the ball. Although I can fully understand why people think a yellow or possibly red card. That's why refereeing is so difficult.

Hearts felt they should have had a penalty when McPake brought down Scott Robinson in the area. Should it have been given?

It's difficult to say whether I would have given it. I'm looking at TV evidence.

The challenge has been made and the Hearts player is still on his feet. The legs of McPake have gone past the player. So if there's any contact being made, who initiated that contact?

Was it as a result of McPake still sliding through and a natural collision? Or was it an illegal challenge by McPake? That's what the referee has got to decide. It's a marginal call.

Hearts gained an advantage through Andrew Driver, who shot wide. Should the referee have brought play back and awarded a penalty?

If the referee does give a penalty, the ball falls to Driver and he puts it in the net, he's got to withdraw the goal and give the penalty kick.

Say the penalty kick is missed. The referee will come under great criticism for going back and giving the penalty.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have the penalty and the advantage. The referee has three or four big decisions to make there in a very small space of time.

The referee has got roughly two to three seconds where he can pull back play if the advantage doesn't accrue.

Most people would say there was a clear advantage. I don't think you can criticise the referee for allowing a professional player from that distance a chance to score the goal.

You can understand they want to go back and have the penalty kick. You can't have two advantages from the one situation.

Is it appropriate for a referee to let a game flow because it is a passionate game, or should he just apply the rules even-handedly?

People want consistency from referees. As soon as you ask for consistency, and we've had these discussions with managers over the last number of years, you are going to get automatic yellow cards for so many things.

When referees are, in the eyes of managers, being pedantic, they say "let referees read the game, smell the game and understand it a bit more. We want guys to use judgment as to what's right, at the right time."

Isn't the danger then that if a referee allows too much to go, a tackle which could cause serious injury could happen? Wouldn't the referee be to blame if that happened?

That's the skill of a referee. I've been involved in games where I've let it go too much. Nine yellow cards and two red cards later, you think: "if only I had clamped down earlier".

The flip side of that is if you clamp down too early, you set your benchmark for these challenges. If players don't respond to these yellow cards, you will have a high crime count.

In terms of Collum reading the game, I think he got the balance right. If Willie looked at it, he might think a yellow card here or there.

Overall, did the referee enhance the game or act to its detriment? I think he enhanced it, as there wasn't much football played.